Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
Things that make you go Hmmmmm...
I got this from a friend of mine, and thought it was worth sharing.
So U be the judge on this one.
Anyone care to share your thoughts?
FROM WIKI: “Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, CA. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast-cancer scientist who had emigrated from India in 1960 to pursue a doctorate in endocrinology at UC Berkeley. Her father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University emeritus professor of economics, who emigrated from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at UC Berkeley.”
So, two things we can gather just from this information:
1. She is not “a woman of color who overcame poverty, r****m & misogyny to become successful,” as the #L*****tPress is saying today. She came from a successful & educated parents, and very likely endured no such hardships.
2. She was born in Oakland less than 4 years after her parents emigrated here. It takes a solid 5 straight years of U.S. residency to become a citizen. When she was born her parents weren't yet citizens.
So, she is not eligible to become Vice President because she’s not a natural born citizen.
BTW, don’t ever forget how she lied & misrepresented the t***h in the Kavanaugh conformation hearings??
Things that make you go Hmmmmm... br br I got thi... (
show quote)
The facts are that in spite of the real intent of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in this country is considered a birth citizen. There is no difference between a birth citizen and a "natural born citizen." The two are synonymous.
What the men who wrote the 14th actually said was that it was not meant to apply to aliens. However, this has been lost in spite of the verbatim comments of the 39th Congress on this matter, and rulings such as
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, and
Elk v Wilkins 1884.
It boils down to a question of "subject to the jurisdiction." Foreigners in this country legally are not "subject to the jurisdiction" in the same way a US citizen is, much less a wetback. I******s cannot v**e, they cannot legally hold a job, or even stay here. They cannot be drafted into the military and except in extraordinary circumstances even enlist in the military, and they cannot be charged with or tried for treason.
A foreigner is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US in the same way as a citizen, so their progeny's citizenship should be limited to the parent's country of origin.
The situation changes if one parent is a citizen or a permanent legal resident. If either of Harris' parents were a legal resident then she is a citizen under the original context of the 14th.
If indeed, anyone who can fog a mirror is a birth citizen by virtue of being born here as some people claim the 14th Amendment states, then why was it necessary to enact the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924? Indians born in this country to parents who were born in this country were not considered citizens, because of the jursidiction question until passage of this law, some 50 odd years AFTER the 14th was ratified.
In the case of
Elk v Wilkins 1884, John Elk's claim to birth citizenship was denied in spite of the fact that he was born here, due in no small part to his parents' status as Indians before the ICA 1924.
In the case of
US v Wong Kim Ark1898, Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a birth citizen because his parent, while not citizens, were the 19th century equivalent of "permanent legal residents." The first sentence of the SCOTUS decision makes this plain when they say that the parents of Wong Kim Ark maintained a US domicile. I looked up the 1898 definition of domicile and it means a primary and permanent legal residence.
I digress. Although it is a legal fiction, Harris' status as a birth citizen will not be questioned successfully in any court, due to the unconstitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment being used today which flies in the face of the intent of the 39th Congress and the people of the 1868 United States.
That is, unless of course either or both of her parents had made it to "permanent legal resident" status.